I was surprised to see Shrigley's name on the list just cos i would have thought he had been nominated before. Lynette Yiadom-Boakye's work is not very good at all, is her getting nominated for prizes a race thing?

This year's jury is chaired by Tate Britain director Penelope Curtis and includes the curator Annie Fletcher and the writer and lecturer Declan Long.

Race? Why not? Along with age, region, education, network and insider trading... I mean it's not like they've any coherent criterion against which to measure the four bodies of work, apart from, you know, prior approval, peer pressure and market farces...

Long said the each of the four shortlisted artists represented "remarkable developments" in art.

A common sentiment expressed or implied is that black people who get art prizes/ do well in art world are only there because of racial tokenism or political correctness.

Let's examine this idea.

Firstly its converse: Every time a white male middle class christian origin human is given a prize do we feel the need to mention the inherent socioeconomic privileges and permissions that such people start with, and somewhat discount their achievement?

Secondly the actual assertion: What evidence do people saying that it's easier for black people to be successful artists have (substitute women, gays, disabled or mix thereof if you like)? Have they got one single iota of data showing that this is the case. I believe (and feel free to double check this) that black people and other minorities still face daily discrimination and prejudice, assumptions about their potential. Certainly educational outcomes for black kids in the UK are worse than for other groups.

Thirdly the history: Clearly there has been masssive prejudice and barriers to black people becoming visual artists in the past, there are few example especially in the painting field. Ditto other minorities. It is a profession which largely consists of white middle/upper class males and has done for a while. So it seems unlikely that is has suddenly become really easy to become an artist if you're black.

So next time you hear someone say "ah right she's black is she", tell them they're talking racist crap.

Have the courage of your convictions. Are you referring to me when you talk about people "talking racist crap" or not? I wont refute your argument because I think its nonsense, your characterization of people doesn't sound familiar or even plausible to me (I don't believe people say "ah right she's black is she" when they hear about people winning prizes). Your reaction assumes loads of things that I don't relate to at all. However, it was me who originally mentioned race here so I can't help thinking your response was directed at me. Let me know if it was and I'll respond to it.

Here is a online sampler of Yiadom-Boakye’s work. Tell me what you think the predominant feature to the content is – if not a racial or ethnic mileu? Even her snotty elitist gallery Chisenhale minces around this one, claiming on one hand –

Yiadom-Boakye’s figurative paintings are drawn from her own fictitious set of characters and allude to traditions of European portraiture. The way in which an audience might project meaning on to these figures is a key point of interest for Yiadom-Boakye, addressing the very problem of representation – particularly with regards to black subjects – in figurative painting and public spectatorship at large.

(my emphasis)

But in the very next paragraph –

Yiadom-Boakye’s paintings suggest a narrative but the people and places depicted are carefully ambiguous ciphers of the imagination. Occasionally there are small traces of specificity, such clothing or hairstyles, but largely the figures and scenarios appear unfixed to any clear associations of race, class, gender or location.

(my emphasis)

Well which is it, is the race card played here or only feigned?

This is just more coy, smug curatorial bullshit – a way of finding distinction in sociology as a way of avoiding aesthetics – As Jiminy bluntly puts it – the work is shit – AS PAINTING IN 2013 – and the only reason he looks for some ulterior agenda is because this ain’t Kerry James Marshall, Kara Walker, Chris Ofili, Cheri Samba or even Hurvin Anderson. You want to play the race card these days, you better make sure you can really paint and have something to say. The competition is stiff. Yiadom-Boakye is just tame lame academic stodge trading under multicultural hypocrisy – ripe fare for the Tate of course, you’ll notice even during the show back in March-May last year Tanya Barstool from the Tate Modern was already simpering her way around the show.

She makes work about race? OK. You might dislike her work... (ditto most of the artists on the list may not be very good) but how do you get to the point of assuming that she is on the list because of her skin colour. Where do you find evidence for that inference?

Many of the arists might have pseudo=philosophical/sciological spiels attached to their work, but you don't assume that they are there because of positive discrimination.

I haven't said the artist is chosen because of her race - I've said her WORK is chosen because of its racial content.I've said this is one of several social agendas - feminism being more prominent - and is conducted in combination.

My complaints are entirely with the choices of the selectors.

I've quoted from the Chisenhale site - from the show in 2012 which won Yiadom-Boakye nomination in the Turner Prize - indicating as clearly as I can that the press release there - the work of either a sympathetic curator or close consultant of the artist - expressly mentions the terms 'black subject matter' and 'race'. Again this concerns the works, not the artist's ethnicity.

Neither I nor Chisenhale make any inference about the relative merits of the artist's race.

My complaint is entirely with the way certain issues are given priority and treated in a doctrinaire or unproblematic way. This seems counter to the spirit of art and really the province of social science.

At no time have I assumed a policy of positive discrimination operates - and it's hard to see how it could. All the works are so varied it's not as if one could discriminate purely on grounds of race say (or religion or star sign or whatever...) and still comply with grounds for an art prize. Art is not like say SAT scores or A levels, where numbers can simply be juggled.

Ok I am trying to understand. You're saying she's on the list because her work's about black people. And others are on the list because their work is about some other "issue" perhaps. And that curators like issue based work. In some part I agree that public galleries prefer art about hot topics rather than hot art about art, perhaps because it's easier to explain.

However most art is at some level about the artist themselves, and I think one needs to be precise and careful not to fall into the quite common unthinking and offensive assertion that minority artists get on lists because their work ticks some sort of box. I think that this is a common way of undermining artists that probably have had more not less struggle to get their art seen/ become artists. And to assume that their achievements are based on them filling curatorial agenda rather than the combination of factors that other artist achieve success through it reductive, wrong, and racist in the sense that people are making incorrect assertions because of race.

Yes absolutely! And when an artist makes art about crude social stereotypes they implicitly announce a seriously stunted view of themselves. This is a grave social problem as well as an artistic one - but not one I think art needs to encourage.

But just to go back to the tokenised nature of The Turner - I think the selectors most definitely have an agenda - they want a new media artist, a performance or relational artist, a 2D bod - whether painting or photo or other print and then an installation or 3D artist. But this has nothing to do with the spread of talent in any given year in the UK - there's no reason why they couldn't have three painters or three installationists if the talent is there at the time, but they don't want to offend different camps so we always get this compromised - tokenised - cross-section. It tells us more about art world politics than it does about what's been shown in the last year. And I definitely think they are anxious to make sure half the sample are female - irrespective of other categories. This is not to say female artists are less talented or deserving, but again the consistent even-handedness tells you they don't really trust their judgements of the work either.

Personally I'm crushed that Cath Pilkington still hasn't made the cut, but art world politics eh?

Also I think the box Yiadom-Boakye is ticking is probably the Post Colonial tip - may or may not reflect her background - but I'm betting it's a quite deliberate choice on her part - just as her career path (via Harlem etc) uses options available to her, even when other paths are not. This is true of everyone! We have some choices, but whether they will really get us where we want to go is another matter. Whether her struggle is any greater than someone who failed to get into St Martins, Falmouth and The Royal Academy School or couldn't afford the trifecta is moot. How do you compare people's lives anyway?